Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)

We have more genes in common with people we pick to be our friends than with strangers.

Though not biologically related, friends are as "related" as fourth cousins, sharing about 1% of genes. That is 1 a study publishedfrom the University of California and Yale University in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has 2 .

The study is a genome-wide analysis conducted 3 1932 unique subjects which 4pairs of unrelated friends and unrelated strangers. The same people were used in both 5.

While 1% may seem 6 , it is not so to a geneticist. As co-author of the study James Fowler, professor of medical genetics at UC San Diego says, "Most people do not even 7their fourth cousins but somehow manage to select as friends the people who 8 our kin."

The team 9 developed a "friendship score" which can predict who will be your friend based on their genes.

The study also found that the genes for smell were something shared in friends but not genes for immunity. Why this similarity in olfactory genes is difficult to explain, for now. 10, as the team suggests, it draws us 11similar environments but there is more to it. There could be many mechanisms working in tandem that 12us in choosing genetically similar friends 13 "functional kinship" of being friends with 14 !

One of the remarkable findings of the study was that the similar genes seem to be evolving 15 than other genes. Studying this could help 16 why human evolution picked pace in the last 30,000 years, with social environment being a major 17 factor.

The findings do not simply corroborate people's 18to befriend those of similar et 19 backgrounds, say the researchers. Though all the subjects were drawn from a population of European extraction, care was taken to 20that all subjects, friends and strangers were taken from the same population. The team also controlled the data to check ancestry of subjects

King JuanCarlos of Spain once insited” kings don’t abdicate, they die in their sleep.” But embarrassing scandals and the popularity of the republican left in the recenet Euro-elections have forced him to eat his words and stand down. So does the Spanish crisis suggestthat monarchy is seeing its last days? Does that mean the writing is on the wall for all European royals, withtheir magnificent uniforms andmajestic lifestyles?

The Spanish case provides arguments both for and against monarchy. When public opinion is particularly polarized, as it was following the end of the Franco regime, monarchs can rise above” mere”politics and “embody” a spirit of national unity.

Itis this apparenttranscendence of politics that explains monarchs continuing popularity as heads of state. And so, the Middle East excepted, Europe is the mostmonarch- infested region in the world, with 10 kingdoms (not counting Vatican City and Andorra).But unlike their absolutist counterpartsin the Gulf and Asia, most royal families have survived because they allow voters to avoid the difficult searchfor a non-controversial but respected public figure.

Even so, kings and queens undoubtedly have a downside. Symbolic of national unity as they claim to be, their very history-and sometimes the way they behave today-embodies outdated and indefensible privileges and inequalities. At a time when Thomas Piketty and other economists are warming of rising inequality and the increasing power of inherited wealth, it is bizarre that wealthy aristocratic families should still be the symbolic heart of modern democratic states.

The most successful monarchies strive to abandon or hide their old aristocratic ways. Princes and princesses have day-jobs and ride bicycles, not horses(or helicopters). Even so, these are wealthy families who party with the international 1%, and media intrusiveness makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the right image.